Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

If you can't be bothered to cite them then I can't be bothered to take what you write seriously.

Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

If you can't be bothered to cite them then I can't be bothered to take what you write seriously.

It's not that difficult to click the conservapedia links to see the studies that I am referring to, Envisage. Also, dismissing what I said just because I referred to Christian websites is a sign of superficial analysis. If I were you, I wouldn't dismiss what someone else is saying solely because his sources are secular (especially if the secular sources claim to have cited reputable sources).

Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

If you can't be bothered to cite them then I can't be bothered to take what you write seriously.

It's not that difficult to click the conservapedia links to see the studies that I am referring to, Envisage. Also, dismissing what I said just because I referred to Christian websites is a sign of superficial analysis. If I were you, I wouldn't dismiss what someone else is saying solely because his sources are secular (especially if the secular sources claim to have cited reputable sources).

Alright, I am game, let's look into your rape claim:

*clicks link*

First sentence:

"Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape. Western atheists often assert there are no absolutes in morality and argue for moral relativism (see: Atheism and morality)."

Not all atheists sign up to moral relativism, in fact few do.

..

"Christian apologist Kyle Butt wrote: "In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009)"

In what context? In some contexts I would agree that rape would be a moral obligation. But these contexts would be extreme. Yet to see anything on atheism and increased rape..

More anecdote, doesn't demonstrate the claim that atheists are more likely to rape.

---- END OF PAGE----

Wtf man, if you want to waste my time you are going about it the right way. This is why I ask for the studies that demonstrate your claims, this page is pathetic. My reasons for dismissing this page out of hand are not unfounded, just like I wouldn't click on an answers in genesis page to see the latest in the theory of relativity.

Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

If you can't be bothered to cite them then I can't be bothered to take what you write seriously.

It's not that difficult to click the conservapedia links to see the studies that I am referring to, Envisage. Also, dismissing what I said just because I referred to Christian websites is a sign of superficial analysis. If I were you, I wouldn't dismiss what someone else is saying solely because his sources are secular (especially if the secular sources claim to have cited reputable sources).

Alright, I am game, let's look into your rape claim:

*clicks link*

First sentence:

"Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape. Western atheists often assert there are no absolutes in morality and argue for moral relativism (see: Atheism and morality)."

Not all atheists sign up to moral relativism, in fact few do.

..

"Christian apologist Kyle Butt wrote: "In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009)"

In what context? In some contexts I would agree that rape would be a moral obligation. But these contexts would be extreme. Yet to see anything on atheism and increased rape..

More anecdote, doesn't demonstrate the claim that atheists are more likely to rape.

---- END OF PAGE----

Wtf man, if you want to waste my time you are going about it the right way. This is why I ask for the studies that demonstrate your claims, this page is pathetic. My reasons for dismissing this page out of hand are not unfounded, just like I wouldn't click on an answers in genesis page to see the latest in the theory of relativity.

The key part is where Rebecca Watson says that "hundreds of atheists" have wanted to rape her.

Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

If you can't be bothered to cite them then I can't be bothered to take what you write seriously.

It's not that difficult to click the conservapedia links to see the studies that I am referring to, Envisage. Also, dismissing what I said just because I referred to Christian websites is a sign of superficial analysis. If I were you, I wouldn't dismiss what someone else is saying solely because his sources are secular (especially if the secular sources claim to have cited reputable sources).

Alright, I am game, let's look into your rape claim:

*clicks link*

First sentence:

"Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape. Western atheists often assert there are no absolutes in morality and argue for moral relativism (see: Atheism and morality)."

Not all atheists sign up to moral relativism, in fact few do.

..

"Christian apologist Kyle Butt wrote: "In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009)"

In what context? In some contexts I would agree that rape would be a moral obligation. But these contexts would be extreme. Yet to see anything on atheism and increased rape..

More anecdote, doesn't demonstrate the claim that atheists are more likely to rape.

---- END OF PAGE----

Wtf man, if you want to waste my time you are going about it the right way. This is why I ask for the studies that demonstrate your claims, this page is pathetic. My reasons for dismissing this page out of hand are not unfounded, just like I wouldn't click on an answers in genesis page to see the latest in the theory of relativity.

The key part is where Rebecca Watson says that "hundreds of atheists" have wanted to rape her.

1. Why should I believe that claim? It's anecdote, and if this was true across the board then there would be substantial social studies on this and the results would be all over the news.

I only need to find one exaggerating winging Girl who claims she was attacked like this by Christians and we're back to square one. And that is not exactly hard to do on google.

Now please actually provide half-decent evidence for your claims, instead for questionable anecdote that even if true doesn't demonstrate the truth if your claim. You can't generalise from hearsay to an entire population unless you have a rigorous study on the matter,

Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

If you can't be bothered to cite them then I can't be bothered to take what you write seriously.

It's not that difficult to click the conservapedia links to see the studies that I am referring to, Envisage. Also, dismissing what I said just because I referred to Christian websites is a sign of superficial analysis. If I were you, I wouldn't dismiss what someone else is saying solely because his sources are secular (especially if the secular sources claim to have cited reputable sources).

Alright, I am game, let's look into your rape claim:

*clicks link*

First sentence:

"Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape. Western atheists often assert there are no absolutes in morality and argue for moral relativism (see: Atheism and morality)."

Not all atheists sign up to moral relativism, in fact few do.

..

"Christian apologist Kyle Butt wrote: "In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009)"

In what context? In some contexts I would agree that rape would be a moral obligation. But these contexts would be extreme. Yet to see anything on atheism and increased rape..

More anecdote, doesn't demonstrate the claim that atheists are more likely to rape.

---- END OF PAGE----

Wtf man, if you want to waste my time you are going about it the right way. This is why I ask for the studies that demonstrate your claims, this page is pathetic. My reasons for dismissing this page out of hand are not unfounded, just like I wouldn't click on an answers in genesis page to see the latest in the theory of relativity.

The key part is where Rebecca Watson says that "hundreds of atheists" have wanted to rape her.

1. Why should I believe that claim? It's anecdote, and if this was true across the board then there would be substantial social studies on this and the results would be all over the news.

I only need to find one exaggerating winging Girl who claims she was attacked like this by Christians and we're back to square one. And that is not exactly hard to do on google.

Now please actually provide half-decent evidence for your claims, instead for questionable anecdote that even if true doesn't demonstrate the truth if your claim. You can't generalise from hearsay to an entire population unless you have a rigorous study on the matter,

Yeah, but the claim is from an ATHEIST HERSELF. That's what makes her story so special. Also, do you think the media is preoccupied with studies about atheism and creation when they have to worry about other stuff... like miley cyrus doing inappropriate stuff on MTV?

I only need to find one exaggerating winging Girl who claims she was attacked like this by Christians and we're back to square one. And that is not exactly hard to do on google.

Also, Christian can include catholics, mormons, etc. they're not Christian. If you find a girl who claims to get attacked by a Christian (but is a Catholic), then that wont count.

Now please actually provide half-decent evidence for your claims, instead for questionable anecdote that even if true doesn't demonstrate the truth if your claim. You can't generalise from hearsay to an entire population unless you have a rigorous study on the matter,

What's above is not really questionable anecdote. Like I said, an atheist herself admitted it. I mean, the thing is that you already had the preconceived notion for rejecting my sources since it was "Christian", but now you say no to this even though Rebecca Watson is an atheist? what???

Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

If you can't be bothered to cite them then I can't be bothered to take what you write seriously.

It's not that difficult to click the conservapedia links to see the studies that I am referring to, Envisage. Also, dismissing what I said just because I referred to Christian websites is a sign of superficial analysis. If I were you, I wouldn't dismiss what someone else is saying solely because his sources are secular (especially if the secular sources claim to have cited reputable sources).

Alright, I am game, let's look into your rape claim:

*clicks link*

First sentence:

"Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape. Western atheists often assert there are no absolutes in morality and argue for moral relativism (see: Atheism and morality)."

Not all atheists sign up to moral relativism, in fact few do.

..

"Christian apologist Kyle Butt wrote: "In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009)"

In what context? In some contexts I would agree that rape would be a moral obligation. But these contexts would be extreme. Yet to see anything on atheism and increased rape..

More anecdote, doesn't demonstrate the claim that atheists are more likely to rape.

---- END OF PAGE----

Wtf man, if you want to waste my time you are going about it the right way. This is why I ask for the studies that demonstrate your claims, this page is pathetic. My reasons for dismissing this page out of hand are not unfounded, just like I wouldn't click on an answers in genesis page to see the latest in the theory of relativity.

The key part is where Rebecca Watson says that "hundreds of atheists" have wanted to rape her.

1. Why should I believe that claim? It's anecdote, and if this was true across the board then there would be substantial social studies on this and the results would be all over the news.

I only need to find one exaggerating winging Girl who claims she was attacked like this by Christians and we're back to square one. And that is not exactly hard to do on google.

Now please actually provide half-decent evidence for your claims, instead for questionable anecdote that even if true doesn't demonstrate the truth if your claim. You can't generalise from hearsay to an entire population unless you have a rigorous study on the matter,

Also, Envisage, I feel that you're trying to cherry pick certain conservapedia links to dismiss the rest of the links that DO contain rigorous studies. Even if the "rape" article seems weak to you, you should check the other links.

Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

If you can't be bothered to cite them then I can't be bothered to take what you write seriously.

It's not that difficult to click the conservapedia links to see the studies that I am referring to, Envisage. Also, dismissing what I said just because I referred to Christian websites is a sign of superficial analysis. If I were you, I wouldn't dismiss what someone else is saying solely because his sources are secular (especially if the secular sources claim to have cited reputable sources).

Alright, I am game, let's look into your rape claim:

*clicks link*

First sentence:

"Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape. Western atheists often assert there are no absolutes in morality and argue for moral relativism (see: Atheism and morality)."

Not all atheists sign up to moral relativism, in fact few do.

..

"Christian apologist Kyle Butt wrote: "In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009)"

In what context? In some contexts I would agree that rape would be a moral obligation. But these contexts would be extreme. Yet to see anything on atheism and increased rape..

More anecdote, doesn't demonstrate the claim that atheists are more likely to rape.

---- END OF PAGE----

Wtf man, if you want to waste my time you are going about it the right way. This is why I ask for the studies that demonstrate your claims, this page is pathetic. My reasons for dismissing this page out of hand are not unfounded, just like I wouldn't click on an answers in genesis page to see the latest in the theory of relativity.

The key part is where Rebecca Watson says that "hundreds of atheists" have wanted to rape her.

1. Why should I believe that claim? It's anecdote, and if this was true across the board then there would be substantial social studies on this and the results would be all over the news.

I only need to find one exaggerating winging Girl who claims she was attacked like this by Christians and we're back to square one. And that is not exactly hard to do on google.

Now please actually provide half-decent evidence for your claims, instead for questionable anecdote that even if true doesn't demonstrate the truth if your claim. You can't generalise from hearsay to an entire population unless you have a rigorous study on the matter,

Yeah, but the claim is from an ATHEIST HERSELF. That's what makes her story so special. Also, do you think the media is preoccupied with studies about atheism and creation when they have to worry about other stuff... like miley cyrus doing inappropriate stuff on MTV?

Please tell me how it being from an atheist makes this any more authentic and representive of the trends of all atheists. It is BAD evidence.

I only need to find one exaggerating winging Girl who claims she was attacked like this by Christians and we're back to square one. And that is not exactly hard to do on google.

Also, Christian can include catholics, mormons, etc. they're not Christian. If you find a girl who claims to get attacked by a Christian (but is a Catholic), then that wont count.

No true Scotsman at its finest.

Now please actually provide half-decent evidence for your claims, instead for questionable anecdote that even if true doesn't demonstrate the truth if your claim. You can't generalise from hearsay to an entire population unless you have a rigorous study on the matter,

What's above is not really questionable anecdote. Like I said, an atheist herself admitted it. I mean, the thing is that you already had the preconceived notion for rejecting my sources since it was "Christian", but now you say no to this even though Rebecca Watson is an atheist? what???

I said even if this was true it doesn't demonstrate your claim. And I question even it's authenticity. Now do you actually have the statistical or social studies or not? If not then You are wasting my time.

Aha, I knew someone would point out that I cited Conservapedia.The thing is that Conservapedia CONTAINS STUDIES from other reputable sources. I would love to refer to those sources, but do you honestly think I'd go out of my way to cite all of them? That would take a very long time. I just wanted to get the job done quickly.

If you can't be bothered to cite them then I can't be bothered to take what you write seriously.

It's not that difficult to click the conservapedia links to see the studies that I am referring to, Envisage. Also, dismissing what I said just because I referred to Christian websites is a sign of superficial analysis. If I were you, I wouldn't dismiss what someone else is saying solely because his sources are secular (especially if the secular sources claim to have cited reputable sources).

Alright, I am game, let's look into your rape claim:

*clicks link*

First sentence:

"Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape. Western atheists often assert there are no absolutes in morality and argue for moral relativism (see: Atheism and morality)."

Not all atheists sign up to moral relativism, in fact few do.

..

"Christian apologist Kyle Butt wrote: "In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009)"

In what context? In some contexts I would agree that rape would be a moral obligation. But these contexts would be extreme. Yet to see anything on atheism and increased rape..

More anecdote, doesn't demonstrate the claim that atheists are more likely to rape.

---- END OF PAGE----

Wtf man, if you want to waste my time you are going about it the right way. This is why I ask for the studies that demonstrate your claims, this page is pathetic. My reasons for dismissing this page out of hand are not unfounded, just like I wouldn't click on an answers in genesis page to see the latest in the theory of relativity.

The key part is where Rebecca Watson says that "hundreds of atheists" have wanted to rape her.

1. Why should I believe that claim? It's anecdote, and if this was true across the board then there would be substantial social studies on this and the results would be all over the news.

I only need to find one exaggerating winging Girl who claims she was attacked like this by Christians and we're back to square one. And that is not exactly hard to do on google.

Now please actually provide half-decent evidence for your claims, instead for questionable anecdote that even if true doesn't demonstrate the truth if your claim. You can't generalise from hearsay to an entire population unless you have a rigorous study on the matter,

Also, Envisage, I feel that you're trying to cherry pick certain conservapedia links to dismiss the rest of the links that DO contain rigorous studies. Even if the "rape" article seems weak to you, you should check the other links.

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

Yeah, but the claim is from an ATHEIST HERSELF. That's what makes her story so special. Also, do you think the media is preoccupied with studies about atheism and creation when they have to worry about other stuff... like miley cyrus doing inappropriate stuff on MTV?

Please tell me how it being from an atheist makes this any more authentic and representive of the trends of all atheists. It is BAD evidence.

well if it came from a Christian girl then you would have been so quick to dismiss it since Christians are so biased (i mean you were quick enough to dismiss conservapedia), right?

Well, the girl is an atheist describing how her FELLOW atheists want to rape her.

I only need to find one exaggerating winging Girl who claims she was attacked like this by Christians and we're back to square one. And that is not exactly hard to do on google.

Also, Christian can include catholics, mormons, etc. they're not Christian. If you find a girl who claims to get attacked by a Christian (but is a Catholic), then that wont count.

No true Scotsman at its finest.

No. Just as one is either american or not, one is either Christian or not Christian. the Bible determines who is Christian and who isn't. Jehovahs witnesses and Catholics fail to meet the test of Scripture!

Now please actually provide half-decent evidence for your claims, instead for questionable anecdote that even if true doesn't demonstrate the truth if your claim. You can't generalise from hearsay to an entire population unless you have a rigorous study on the matter,

What's above is not really questionable anecdote. Like I said, an atheist herself admitted it. I mean, the thing is that you already had the preconceived notion for rejecting my sources since it was "Christian", but now you say no to this even though Rebecca Watson is an atheist? what???

I said even if this was true it doesn't demonstrate your claim. And I question even it's authenticity. Now do you actually have the statistical or social studies or not? If not then You are wasting my time.

Unfortunately I don't have the statistical studies for it, but the very fact that the atheist girl admitted to getting rape threats from fellow atheists should be enough proof to get you to ponder.But there are statistical studies for the OTHER links. Like I said, don't be a cherry picker!

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Paste those links in here then.

Show me the rape statistics.

The links for suicide, depression, alcoholism, etc are above.

I already said that I don't have the rape stats unfortunately, but you can't dismiss everything else just because you cant get the data for ONE THING.

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

Sure.

So, you will be arguing that Christians are more miserable than Atheists!

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

Sure.

So, you will be arguing that Christians are more miserable than Atheists!

At 6/27/2014 4:09:58 AM, GOP wrote:Why are atheists more likely to engage in the following:

-Suicide (1)

The first line of evidence present in the article was from 1894. Obviously not believers would be more inclined to suicide given that social customs at that time were not at all friendly to nonbelief.

Using the second line of evidence; the paper from the American Journal of Psychiatry in order to support the notion that atheists are more inclined to suicide is critiqued at length by Carrier. (http://freethoughtblogs.com...)

The third line of evidence derives from Zuckerman's work. I myself am a fan of Zuckerman! Unfortunately, the summary of his work is somewhat quoted out of context and does not really support the statement being made.

"According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia."

"Of the current top-ten nations with the highest rates of suicide, most are relativelysecular (World Health Organization, 2003). But it is worth noting that eight of thesetop-ten are post-Soviet countries, suggesting that decades of totalitarianism, depressed economies, and a lack of basic human freedoms may be more significant in explaining the high rates of suicide than low levels of God-belief."

-Alcoholism (2)

So the best argument found within this article is that alcoholism was a serious problem in the Soviet Union. This does not support the notion that atheists succumb more to alcoholism.

- rape (3)

As far as I can see, the only real "arguments" that are made is:

i) atheism leads to moral relativism, and thus rape is not intrinsically wrong from an atheistic perspective.ii) Rebecca Watson, Elevatorgate, and TheAmazing Atheist.

(i) is not necessarily true, while some atheists would believe that this is the case. A significant proportion of meta-ethicists and normative ethicists are both atheists and moral realists (from Philpapers survey). However, the underlying problem with this is that it does nothing to support the claim that atheists are more likely to rape.

Using (ii) to argue the atheism-rape claim is simply a generalization based on a few anecdotes and lack of peer-reviewed studies.

-foul language (4)

So you're using the actions of atheists on Twitter to argue your case. Nevertheless, this is responded to on the very page you quote this from:

"As I said before, there may be a good reason for this. Atheists (or at least those people likely to follow prominent atheists on Twitter) tend to tweet about things they"re pissed off about, especially regarding religion. Christians (or those who follow prominent Christians on Twitter), on the other hand, like to tweet about church and God and other fu*king sh!t like that. (Dammit!)"/

-being depressed (5)

Controversial claim within pshychology, and results tend to be mixed. Zuckerman summarises the other side's point of view.

"Ventis (1995) has argued that secular people are actually psychologically healthier than religious people (see also Beit-Hallahmi 2007) "

Certainly true. Although atheists are far more likely than the religious to support political candidates that support redistribution of wealth than the religious. Again, from Zuckerman,

"it should be noted that it is the most secular democracies on earth " such as Scandinavia " that donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations (Center for GlobalDevelopment, 2008). Furthermore, secular people are much more likely than religious people to vote for candidates and programs that redistribute wealth from the richer seg-ments of society to the poorer segments through progressive taxation. Finally, Oliner and Oliner (1988) and Varese and Yaish (2000), in their studies of heroic altruism during the Holocaust, found that the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews."

-being more prone to obesity (7)

Seems to be the case. The article nevertheless almost completely consists of ad-hominem attacks against prominent members of the "New Atheist" movement, and some of the "skeptic" movement.

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

Sure.

So, you will be arguing that Christians are more miserable than Atheists!

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

Sure.

So, you will be arguing that Christians are more miserable than Atheists!

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

Sure.

So, you will be arguing that Christians are more miserable than Atheists!

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

Sure.

So, you will be arguing that Christians are more miserable than Atheists!

Just point out the difference between correlation and causation and move on.

I don't listen to junk evidence. I would accept the fact if presented with half decent facts but he hasn't provided any. I would even accept there is genuine causation somewhere, it doesn't particularly bother me. But once again the facts are just junk.

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

Sure.

So, you will be arguing that Christians are more miserable than Atheists!

Just point out the difference between correlation and causation and move on.

I don't listen to junk evidence. I would accept the fact if presented with half decent facts but he hasn't provided any. I would even accept there is genuine causation somewhere, it doesn't particularly bother me. But once again the facts are just junk.

He should of made his own case instead of just posting some links, but I cherry picked a few and checked the citations. A few others I already knew. A strong case can be made for those opinions. He should hone in on just one side affect of atheism if he wanted a good exchange, but either way. You know how I'd dismiss him.

I've done my research and it does seem more beneficial on an individual level to be a theist. Theist's are happier, healthier and more succesful. I just can't force myself to be subjected to that amount of self delusion.

I picked rape since it appeared to be the most extreme and important claim. And after having read that crap I'm not going to waste my time reading the other 6.

So, in other words, you're actually dismissing the links with ACTUAL STATISTICS, the very thing that you were looking for!You looked for statistics for the rape claim, but dismiss the other ones even though they are backed with so much data. I sense discrepancies!

Btw send me a debate on this any time, I will take my free win.

Yeah, are you okay with the resolution "Atheists are more miserable than Christians?"

Sure.

So, you will be arguing that Christians are more miserable than Atheists!

Just point out the difference between correlation and causation and move on.

I don't listen to junk evidence. I would accept the fact if presented with half decent facts but he hasn't provided any. I would even accept there is genuine causation somewhere, it doesn't particularly bother me. But once again the facts are just junk.

He should of made his own case instead of just posting some links, but I cherry picked a few and checked the citations. A few others I already knew. A strong case can be made for those opinions. He should hone in on just one side affect of atheism if he wanted a good exchange, but either way. You know how I'd dismiss him.

I've done my research and it does seem more beneficial on an individual level to be a theist. Theist's are happier, healthier and more succesful. I just can't force myself to be subjected to that amount of self delusion.

I would not be surprised if this was true. I just have the ethic that why should I make an effort if my opponent clearly has not?